How many judgments cite CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.?

330 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 510), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 250, Section 270A, Section 54F.

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

327 ITR 510High Court2010#231 most cited

What is CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

330

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. · 327 ITR 510 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · section 270A penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · unsubstantiated claim · bona fide explanation · levy of penalty · incorrect in law claim · explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274 Section 250 Section 270A Section 54F Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 143

Judgments citing CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Piyush Amritlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 8563/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishpiyush Amritlal Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer – 10/11 Ground Floor 48Th 19(2)(4) Khetwadi Lane, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400012 Pan/Gir No. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 16.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Penalty Proceedings Initiated U/S 271(1) (C) Of The Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law.

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee made bogus purchases from Hawala Parties and concealed income to the extent of profit element in garb of purchases, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was leviable." Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communications 327 ITR 510 it has been ordered that - 4 "..... if an assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, explanation 1 to section 271(1)(C) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty"., 7. Even otherwise, no new f…

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…terest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act settled under the VSVS Scheme. Thereafter, the Ld. AO, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. Delhi High Court in cases of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510, Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd., 328 ITR 53 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 levied the penalty of Rs.19,25,64,233/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- observing as under: “7.1.1 On perusal of details filed during the course of assessment proc…

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

…that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on the facts of instant case. 7. The Ld.DR has filed brief written submission. The Ld.DR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., reported in 327 ITR 510 in support of her contention that mere non-availability of bill does not make the claim allowable. The Ld.DR further contended that assessee had made bogus / unsubstantiated claim of exemption / deduction and thereby the assessee satisfies under both limb u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act namely concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars…

Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi, Keralassery vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal

Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…return, the penalty under section 270A of the Act is not justified. To this extent reliance is placed on decision of ITAT Mumbai in DCIT vs. Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 372 (Mumbai-Trib). In CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that so long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law provided that he either s…

Ss Group (P) Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Cirlce-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…s deleted by the Apex court. Even otherwise, during the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel 6 for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), which, he pointed out, though was relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the present case while levying penalty, it actually supported the assessee’s case. He drew our attention to the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in the said case holding that as long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information g…

Shri Yash Paul Malhotra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…nil. I.T.A. No. 379/Asr/2024 12 Assessment Year: 2016-17 5.6 Before concluding his arguments, he distinguished the judgments referred to in the penalty order and relied upon by the DCIT, on facts of the case: CIT vs ZOOM Communications : ASSESSEE Case: 327 ITR 510 Untenable Claims were made No such claim without any basis and which in audited accounts has no foundation . Income tax amount debited in P & L A/c and claimed as expenditure along with claim on Equipment written off PCIT vs DR Vandana Gupta 301 CTR 460 Original Return filed on 25/09/2009 Full disclosure in Original Survey on 22/02/2010, where…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…g e | 3 ITA No. 415, 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following judgments: CIT v. S. S. Suri (2005) 279 ITR 276 CIT v. Zoom Communication Put. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT v. M/s Sandeep Aggarwal (2018) 93 taxmann.com 293 & CIT v. M/s. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal (2019) 105 taxmann.com 455. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate the importance of the substantive grounds for penalty, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above mentioned judg…

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

Ogd Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43BSection 44A

…nt proceedings that all the facts material to the computation of income were not disclosed by the assessee. Hence, the conditions stipulated in the provisions u/s.271(1)(c) were fulfilled in the instant case. In the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) it has been held that if assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. He placed reliance on certain judicial…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Santosh Shivaji Lad, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Sri Santosh Shivaji Lad, Circle - 6(1)(1), No.520, Amruth Nivas, 7th Main, 13th Cross, Bengaluru RMV 2nd Stage, Dollars Colony, Bengaluru – 560 094. . PAN – ABJPL 0839 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal fil…

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3021/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecorded that block of asset of machinery was not exhausted and hence question of claiming of loss does not arise. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1.06 crore was added. The ld. CIT(A) by referring the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510, wherein it was held that if assessee made a claim it is not only incorrect in law but without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making claim is not found to be bona fide. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee is liable to penalty. The decision of Delhi High Courtin CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.…

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…e Act though he was fully aware of the bare facts about the status of construction of the residential property under reference ofdeduction under section 54F of the Act. 11. The case in hand is quite similar to that of the case of Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour theld that if the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act would 15 come into play and…

Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau, Kutch vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…that, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu and stated that since the assessee has accepted the quantum addition made by the assessing officer, therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, should be sustained. 10. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision stated by the Ld. DR for…

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

…rd, the penalty under Section 270A stands on firm ground. 6.4 The imposition of penalty under Section 270A for misreporting aligns with judicial precedents that underscore accountability for underreporting. Cases such 6 as CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 510) affirm that where additions are upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanations, penalties are justified. In the current case, as the appellant has provided no substantial explanation or evidence to refute the AO's findings, the Department's contention remains unchallenged. 6.5 In light of the appellant's consistent non-compliance and lack of m…

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…me during the course of the scrutiny. Thus, claim of the Assessee of withdrawal of expense cannot be said to be justified and deserves to be penalized. The AO while relying on various judgments specifically in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (327 ITR 510) wherein it was held that for the proposition that "if the Assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty". and Mac D…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

…s to a team of accountants and financial professionals to ensure accurate tax compliance. 17 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT • Errors in tax filings are less excusable when the assessee has professional support, as held in Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi HC)]. 3.4. Retraction of Income and Hypothetical Claim 1. Declaration Under Section 153A Is Binding: • The return filed on 11.08.2018 was a conscious declaration of income and is binding unless proven otherwise. • If the appellant claims that the declaration of "3,87,72,404/- was a mistake, the onus lies on the appellant to provide credibl…